Pages

I suspect that Zeniff was a very persuasive fellow.Consider the instances when he used his
persuasion:

1) As a member of the first group sent to re-colonize
Nephi-Lehi, Zeniff contended with his people to try to convince them to make a
treaty with the Lamanites instead of invading and destroying them.He convinced enough people that the
leader seems to have wanted to permanently shut him up by commanding that he be
slain.(Zeniff must have had a lot
of good arguments, but in his record he merely says, “I saw that which was good
among them.” Ostensibly, he suppresses his reasoning in his record because it
won’t fit well with his final indictment of the Lamanite culture.He is reluctant to seem inconsistent;
few of us like to seem inconsistent so we should be able to understand this..)

2) Zeniff returns to Zarahemla with the 50 who were not
slain in the contention, and he tells the tale of what happened to everyone
else in a persuasive enough way that the families of those who were slain do
not seek retribution.

Zeniff’s account in Mosiah 9:2 says he contended with his
brethren not to kill the Lamanites, but in another account in Omni 1:28 by
Amaleki, the story is that the leader
caused a contention among them.Amaleki may have gotten the official story told to the families, whereas
in Zeniff’s own account he feels free enough to give a different view, perhaps
one closer to what actually happened.

As I think about the version in Omni, it does seem very odd
that a leader would cause a
contention among a group.Usually
someone else besides the leader causes a contention.The leader represents the official policy, and others with
different alternatives cause contention.

3) Zeniff manages to convince ANOTHER party of Nephites to
come on a second colonizing party even after the first one failed.He seems to have been able to persuade
them that a peaceful settlement among the Lamanites was a cinch and they had
nothing to worry about.He didn’t
even know where they would settle, yet he was able to make it sound possible
and reasonable.Also take into
account that he didn’t even know the disposition of the Lamanite king yet.

4) Once Zeniff returned to Nephi-Lehi, he was able to
persuade the Lamanite king to give up some of Lamanite lands, evacuate his
people, and let the Nephites settle in their place.Zeniffi later attributes his success to Lamanite cunning
plans to destroy and bring Nephites into bondage, but I can’t help but wonder
why the Lamanites would wait a full 12 years before attacking instead of
attacking at the beginning?Why
would they not try to bring them into bondage at the beginning as well?Wouldn’t they try to make some sort of
tribute agreement?

Another detail I noticed that makes me wonder is the fact
that Zeniff says in Mosiah 9:6 that the Lamanite king covenanted with Zeniff that the Nephites would possess the land of
Lehi-Nephi and the land of Shilom.“Covenant” usually means a two-way promise.Yet Zeniff only records one side—what the Lamanites would do
for the Nephites (give up land).It seems extraordinarily generous of the Lamanites to just vacate their
land immediately like that, especially if they were as bloodthirsty, hateful,
fierce, and cunning as Zeniff later insists they are.

I suspect that Zeniff actually had an obligation of his own
to fulfill in this covenant, but that he chose not to record it.I suspect that he promised to provide
the Lamanites with a certain amount of tribute crops and animals.Then, I suspect that after 12 years,
that burden of tribute began to feel too obnoxious, so he decided to skip paying
it.

So now, consider that first Lamanite attack on the Nephites
that comes out of the blue after 12 years of peace.Its focus is rather unusual.Instead of attacking the city, the Lamanite army attacks the
Nephites in their fields.Then
they start taking off their flocks and the corn of their fields.It is like the Lamanites are hungry.

However, this makes perfect sense if you assume that Zeniff
agreed to a tribute of food and then didn’t pay it on the 12th
year.He even inserts his
reasoning that the Lamanites were lazy, idolatrous, and wanted to glut
themselves on the labors of the Nephites hands.This is the same kind of resentful grumbling you will hear
from people determined to avoid paying their taxes.“The government is stealing from us. The government is a
parasite!” they will say.If
Zeniff withheld tribute, then the Lamanite army attack would be completely
understandable.They would be sent
to collect what was agreed upon.

Another point of Zeniff’s narrative that makes me wonder is
his description of the reason for the second battle the Lamanites start with
the Nephites.He says that the new
king of the Lamanites began to stir up his people in rebellion against Zeniff’s people (Mosiah 10:6).Rebellion
is such an interesting word here.It implies that somehow Zeniff’s people had gained some sort of
ascendancy, as if they were starting to subjugate the Lamanites.I have to wonder if this actually
describes the reality, or if Zeniff was just twisting the narrative a little.

But either way, calling the Lamanite attack a rebellion
raises questions.If the Lamanites
were rebelling against Nephite
domination, then Zeniff actually kept some very important contextual
information out of his record.On
the other hand, if Zeniff called it a rebellion when it was nothing of the
kind, then he bent the truth for his own purposes.One way he withheld truth, another way he bent the truth.

(Things that make you go, “Hmmmmm..”)

Anyway, all these little details, little inconsistencies add
up to a picture of a man who was very persuasive and who was skilled at bending
the truth to whatever purpose he had in mind, even going so far as to rewrite
his version of history.

Now, when a ruler is adept at bending the truth for his
purposes according to circumstances, what are the ruler’s children going to
learn to do?They will do
the same, and they may push things even further.

Thus, this accounts for the wild mismatch of views between
King Noah and his wicked priests on one hand and Abinadi on the other about
what is happening in the land.King Noah and his wicked priests are bending the truth and not only have
they bent the Nephite historical narrative, they are now bending the Law of
Moses to fit their purposes.Abinadi’s view represents the clear truth to which the Lord desires to
bring the people back.

Recent Comments

About Me

Michaela Stephens

Arizona, United States

I'm a happily married 32-year old who switched from Electronic Engineering Technology to Literature, Writing, and Film.
I worked for 3 years at ASU as a writing tutor and have over 400 sessions worth of experience helping people with their writing.
I'm the oldest of seven children (5 boys, 2 girls)
I'm a bit of a neat freak and an undeniable bookworm.

Disclaimer

http://scriptoriumblogorium.blogspot.com/ is a website with no official affiliation to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed here are those of the individual author and do not necessarily represent the position of the LDS Church. Likewise, the blogs linked to from this site do not necessarily represent the views of Scriptorium Blogorium or its owner.

If you want to opt out of Google Analytic’s advertising features, you can go here [https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout/] and download an extension for your browser.

Commenting Policy: Please use respectful language, with no profanity or obscenity. Play nice, don't fight. Repetitious comments will be deleted. Comments advertising anything unrelated to the subject of the parent post will be deleted. Comments linking to offensive websites will be deleted.